H.R. 1904 – Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011 (Rep. Gosar – Natural Resources) The bill directs the U.S. Agriculture Department to convey approximately 2,400 acres of federal Forest Service land to Resolution Copper, a mining company, if the company agrees to provide roughly 5,300 acres of non-federal land in return. The 2,400 acres of land that would be provided to Resolution Copper are located in Pinal County, Ariz., and are known as the Oak Flat Parcel. This potential land transfer does not have any protections for Southeast Arizona, in terms of the geological assessment of the environmental effects of this transfer, nor does it include protections or consideration for native American tribes. Members tried to include certain protections during the committee markup, but the Republicans rejected all amendments. The bill was voted out of Committee on a party-line vote.

The Rule for H.R. 1904 made 3 amendments in order, each debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided between the offeror and an opponent. They are:

Lujan Amendment. Exempts all Native American sacred and cultural sites from the land conveyance in this billMarkey Amendment. Requires that Resolution Copper pay an 8% royalty to the United States on all locatable minerals produced in commercial quantities from the federal land the company receives in the exchangeGrijalva/Garamendi Amendment. Requires that the remote operations center for the proposed mine be located in the local community, that the company actively recruit and hire local employees, that all ore produced from the mine be processed in the United States and that all equipment used at the mine be made in the United States

H.Res. 448 - Rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 2576 – To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligibility for certain healthcare-related programs (Rep. Black - Ways and Means) and H.R. 674 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities (Rep. Herger - Ways and Means) (One Hour of debate). The Rules Committee has recommended another completely closed Rule that provides for consideration of two bills separately, and then upon passage of both bills, the Rule would direct the clerk to merge the two bills together during the enrollment process, and it would be sent over to the Senate as one bill.

For H.R. 2576, the closed Rule provides for one hour of general debate equally divided between the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The Rule allows no amendments. It does allow one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. It also waives all points of order against the legislation.

For H.R. 674, the closed Rule provides for one hour of general debate equally divided between the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The Rule allows no amendments. It does allow one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. It also waives all points of order against the legislation.

The Rules Committee rejected a motion by Rep. McGovern to provide for Mr. Levin being able to offer his amendment, which would roll back tax breaks to large oil companies to pay for the repeal of the withholding requirement.

The GOP Leadership has announced the following schedule for Thursday, October 27: The House will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. The House is expected to consider H.R. 2576 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligibility for certain healthcare-related programs (Rep. Black - Ways and Means) and H.R. 674 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities (Rep. Herger - Ways and Means).

The Daily Quote

“Regulation does not prevent the economy from achieving full employment. After all, the economy wasn’t that much less regulated in 2007 when the unemployment rate was 4.5%, half of today’s reading…There are, however, legitimate reasons for many regulatory requirements, including the discouragement of health and safety hazards and the reduction of systemic financial risk, the costs of which may not be fully reflected in prices posted in an unregulated market. Hence, it is important to recognize that jobs should not be the sole, even the main, criterion for assessing the value of a particular regulation.”